THE
BITCH WHO SAVED BIG AUTO AND THE BANKS BUT DID NOTHING FOR THOSE
FAMILIES ACROSS THE NATION FACING FORECLOSURES JUST GAVE A SPEECH WHERE
HE BLAMED THEM FOR THE FRAUD THAT WAS ACTUALLY DONE BY THE BANKS.

During
the two-week ride, Kinsella will make stops at 12 military
installations where he plans to promote SSS's mission, raise awareness
about soldier suicide and form partnerships.

He's also encouraging people to join him on different lengths of the ride to show their support.

"Our
desire is for people to join the ride as I pass through towns. It will
really show how much people care and support our brave veterans,"
Kinsella said over coffee last week on September 11th in the Flatiron
District.

The Ride For Life comes as the suicide rate is such that Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta has rightly termed it a crisis. July 25th, he appeared before the House Veterans Affairs Committee. From that day's snapshot:

US
House Rep Mike Michaud: Quick question, and I want to read from a
Veterans Service Organization letter that they actually sent to Senator
[Jim] Webb just last week. And just part of it says, "The only branch
of the military to show a marked improvement decreasing the number of
persons taking their own life is the United States Marines. They should
also be praised for their active leadership from the very top in
addressing the problem and implementing the solutions. The remaining
services have yet to be motivated to take any substanative action. "
Secretary Panetta, I've been to Iraq and Afghanistan several times and
I've looked the generals in the eye and I've asked them what are they
doing personally to help the stigmatized TBI, PTSD? And the second
question is: Do they need any help? I get the same answer over there as
I do over here in DC: 'Everything's okay. We've got all the
resources we need. We don't need any help.' But the interesting thing
is someone much lesser ranked came up to me, after I asked the general
that question, outside and said, "We need a lot more help." And he
suggested that I talk to the clergy to find out what they are seeing
happening. And I did that trip and every trip since then. And I'm
finding that our service members are not getting the help that they
need. And my question, particularly after looking at this letter that
was sent to Senator Webb, it appears the Marines are doing a good job so
why is it so different between the Marines, the Army and other
branches? And can you address that?

Secretary
Leon Panetta: You know -- Obviously, there's no silver bullet here. I
wish there were to try to deal with suicide prevention. We-we have a
new suicide prevention office that's trying to look at programs to try
to address this terrible epedemic. I mean, we are looking. If you look
at just the numbers, recent total are you've got about 104 confirmed
and 102 pending investigation in 2012. The total of this is high,
almost 206. That's nearly one a day. That is an epedemic. Something
is wrong. Part of this is people are inhibited because they don't want
to get the care that they probably need. So that's part of the problem,
trying to get the help that's necessary. Two, to give them access to
the kind of care that they need. But three -- and, again, I stress this
because I see this in a number of other areas, dealing with good
discipline and good order and, uh, trying to make sure that our troops
are responding to the challenges -- it is the leadership in the field.
It's the platoon commander. It's the platoon sergeant. It's the
company commander. It's the company sergeant. The ability to look at
their people, to see these problems. To get ahead of it and to be able
to ensure that when you spot the problems, you're moving that individual
to the kind of-of assistance that they need in order to prevent it.
The Marines stay in close touch with their people. That's probably one
of the reasons that the Marines are doing a good job. But what we're
stressing in the other services is to try to develop that-that training
of the command. So that they two are able to respond to these kinds of
challenges.

Yesterday the Defense Dept released the latest suicide data: "During
August, among active-duty soldiers, there were 16 potential suicides:
three have been confirmed as suicides and 13 remain under
investigation. For July, the Army reported 26 potential suicides among
active-duty soldiers: 13 have been confirmed as suicides and 13 remain
under investigation. For 2012, there have been 131 potential
active-duty suicides: 80 have been confirmed as suicides and 51 remain
under investigation. Active-duty suicide number for 2011: 165
confirmed as suicides and no cases under investigation. During
August, among reserve component soldiers who were not on active duty,
there were nine potential suicides (five Army National Guard and four
Army Reserve): none have been confirmed as suicide and nine remain
under investigation. For July, among that same group, the Army reported
12 potential suicides (nine Army National Guard and three Army
Reserve); four have been confirmed as suicides and eight remain under
investigation. For 2012, there have been 80 potential not on
active-duty suicides (49 Army National Guard and 31 Army Reserve): 59
have been confirmed as suicides and 21 remain under investigation. Not
on active-duty suicide numbers for 2011: 118 (82 Army National Guard
and 36 Army Reserve) confirmed as suicides and no cases under
investigation." The Suicide Prevention Lifeline is 1-800-273-TALK,
1-800-273-8255. (FYI, Cell phones have different lettering than
landlines. That's a fact that seems to escape people giving out letters
for phone numbers currently.)

The
Secretary of State has decided, consistent with the law, to revoke the
designation of the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK) and its aliases as a Foreign
Terrorist Organization (FTO) under the Immigration and Nationality Act
and to delist the MEK as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist under
Executive Order 13224. These actions are effective today. Property and
interests in property in the United States or within the possession or
control of U.S. persons will no longer be blocked, and U.S. entities may
engage in transactions with the MEK without obtaining a license. These
actions will be published in the Federal Register.

With
today's actions, the Department does not overlook or forget the MEK's
past acts of terrorism, including its involvement in the killing of U.S.
citizens in Iran in the 1970s and an attack on U.S. soil in 1992. The
Department also has serious concerns about the MEK as an organization,
particularly with regard to allegations of abuse committed against its
own members.

The Secretary's decision today
took into account the MEK's public renunciation of violence, the
absence of confirmed acts of terrorism by the MEK for more than a
decade, and their cooperation in the peaceful closure of Camp Ashraf,
their historic paramilitary base.

The
United States has consistently maintained a humanitarian interest in
seeking the safe, secure, and humane resolution of the situation at Camp
Ashraf, as well as in supporting the United Nations-led efforts to
relocate eligible former Ashraf residents outside of Iraq.

Some
would be seers have insisted all week that the move was a mistake and
that the MEK deserved to be labeled terrorists (in 1997 by the Clinton
administration) yet they never found an argument to make on behalf of
the Camp Ashraf residents. If Glen Glen and the other Three Faces of
Eve are unhappy with the way things were headed, they should have
factored in that there was a legal obligation to the Camp Ashraf
residents on the part of the US government and then they should have
come up with a suggestion of how to honor that obligation without taking
the MEK off the list. As Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) observed
earlier this year that "since 2004, the United States has considered
the residents of Camp Ashraf 'noncombatants' and 'protected persons'
under the Geneva Conventions."

Paul Richter (Los Angeles Times) observes,
"The Iranian government condemned the decision and blamed the group for
an incident in which a senior Iranian diplomat in New York for the U.N.
General Assembly was assaulted on the street." CNN notes
today that "since 2004 the United States has considered the group,
which has lived for more than 25 years at a refugee camp in Iraq,
'noncombatants' and 'protected persons' under the Geneva
Conventions." So if the Three Faces of Eve had objections to changing
the status of the MEK, they should have made time to propose how to
address the issues of the Camp Ashraf residents. It's not as though,
for example, Antiwar.com hasn't spent years savaging the MEK. If they
had a way to address the legal obligations to Camp Ashraf, they should
have proposed it.

THE
WHITE HOUSE COVERED UP AN AL QAEDA ATTACK ON THE 11TH ANNIVERSARY OF
9-11 AND DID SO APPARENTLY IN ORDER TO MAKE BARRY O APPEAR CAPABLE AND
STRONG. HOWEVER, THE REALITY IS:

U.S. intelligence officials knew less than a day after the bloody
attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, that the perpetrators
were terrorists who are alleged members of an al-Qaeda offshoot, but
President Barack Obama and his minions took about a week to admit it,
according to counterterrorism experts who spoke to the Law Enforcement
Examiner.“Watching U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice say on the
Sunday news shows that the Obama administration deduced that the strike
was a spontaneous event triggered by protests in Egypt over an
anti-Islam film was at once painful and despicable,” said former NYPD
detective Sid Franes, who has worked on that police department’s terror
task force.Rice went as far as calling the Benghazi attack a copy-cat act mirroring the Egyptian protest.“While everyone in the news media and in government service are
tiptoeing around the obvious, I’m going to say it straight out: Obama
and his so-called national security team are a pack of liars and
frauds,” said the angry former New York City cop.

BARRY
O LATER TOLD THESE REPORTERS THAT IT WASN'T IMPORTANT FOR HIM TO BE
FACE-TO-FACE WITH OTHER WORLD LEADERS, "I'M EYE CANDY. I'M TO BE LOOKED
AT, NOT INTERACTED WITH. SHOULD I TAKE OFF MY SHIRT AGAIN?"

Yesterday afternoon, Joe Hamilton explains to the Muskegon Chronicle editors
why he's supporting Barack, "But I'd maintain that if the only thing
that Barack Obama accomplished in foreign policy during his entire time
in office was the end of U.S. military involvement in Iraq, then that
alone makes his presidency significant, historic and well worth voting
for. Yesterday Jack Burgess (Ironton Tribune) explained,
"He's brought the troops home from Iraq on schedule, in spite of
pressures from some in the military and Republicans such as Sen. John
McCain, his opponent in 2008, who said he didn't care if our troops
remained there for 100 years." Last week, Tonja Adams insisted to the Wisconsin State Journal, "Thankfully, President Barack Obama brought our troops home from Iraq and will bring more home from Afghanistan in 2014."

Currently,
there are approximately 15,000 U.S. forces in Kuwait, but the number is
likely to decrease to 13,500. Kuwaiti bases such as Camp Arifjan, Ali
Al Salem Air Field, and Camp Buehring offer the United States major
staging hubs, training rages, and logistical support for regional
operations. U.S. forces also operate Patriot missile batteries in
Kuwait, which are vital to theater missile defense.

In addition, last December, for NBC's Rock Center with Brian Williams,
Ted Koppel addressed the US presence after what Barack called a
"withdrawal" but the Defense Dept called a "drawdown" (the terms have
different meanings):

MR. KOPPEL: I
realize you can't go into it in any detail, but I would assume that
there is a healthy CIA mission here. I would assume that JSOC may still
be active in this country, the joint special operations. You've got FBI
here. You've got DEA here. Can, can you give me sort of a, a menu of, of
who all falls under your control?

AMB. JAMES JEFFREY: You're actually doing pretty well, were I authorized to talk about half of this stuff.

The media just doesn't like that truth. They prefer the lie that everyone came home.

And
now they prefer not to talk about what's taking place between Iraq and
the United States right now: Discussions between the two governments to
get US troops back on the ground in Iraq. In exchange for allowing US
troops back into Iraq in significant numbers, Al Rafidayn reports,
the Iraqi government will get many things including weapons which can
shoot down any thing entering Iraq's air space. You may remember that
Iraq has airspace issues. And even the Iraqis currently in the US
training to fly in Iraqi skies are not going to change that. 2014 was
the 'hoped for' date when bandied around by the Bush administration as
when Iraq could patrol their own skies.

For details on the negotiations, Al Rafidayn cites an MP and the New York Times, Tim Arango's article,
which contained this: "Iraq and the United States are negotiating an
agreement that could result in the return of small units of American
soldiers to Iraq on training missions." Though Tom Hayden wrote six paragraphs for The Nation
about Arango's article he only focused on one sentence ("At the request
of the Iraqi government, according to General [Robert] Caslen, a unit
of Army Special Operations soldiers was recently deployed to Iraq to
advise on counterterrorism and help with intelligence."). He ignored
the sentence that preceded that in Arango's article: "Iraq and the
United States are negotiating an agreement that could result int he
return of small units of American soldiers to Iraq on training
missions."

When you've built your campaign
on 'ending' al Qaeda (by US forces killing Osama bin Laden) and yet al
Qaeda most likely was behind the September 11, 2012 attack on the US
Consulate in Libya, that false claim to have brought all the troops home
from Iraq and ended the US military involvement, seems like it's a
major news story, a very big story, that the US government is
negotiating with the Iraqi government to redeploy troops into Iraq.

but forgot to inform readers that Barack was in talks to send significant numbers of US troops back into Iraq.

The return of US troops, Al Rafidayn reports,
is wanted by the White House in part because Iraq has been unable to
stop Iranian flights to Syria. In addition, they want it due to fears
that, in the words of Sheikh Hamid al-Hayes, that rebel fighters are
grouping in units with al Qaeda in Mesopotamia.

Alsumaria reports
that the former governor of Basra, Mohammed Misbah Waili, was
assassinated today (the firearm had a silencer). The latest day's
violence includes a prison attack BBC News reports assailants using bombs and guns attacked a Tikrit prison. AFP quotes
a police Lieutenant Colonel stating, "A suicide bomber targeted the
gate of the prison with a car bomb and gunment then assaulted the
prison, after which they killed guards" and a police Colonel stating,
"The prisoners killed one policeman and wounded (prison director)
Brigadier General Laith al-Sagmani, the gunmen took control of the
prison, and clashes are continuing." Kitabat states
two car bombs were used to blow up the entrance to the prison and gain
access and they also state 12 guards have been killed. Reports note the
riot is continuing. Alsumaria reports
four guards have died, 1 police officer and the injured include two
soldiers and the prison director al-Sagmani. There's confusion as to
whether a number of prisoners were able to escape in the early stages
after the bombing and during gunfire. Reuters goes with "dozens" escaping which is probably smarter than the hard number some are repeating. Mu Xuequan (Xinhua) reports
5 police officers killed and another two injured -- the numbers are
going to vary until tomorrow, this is ongoing -- and state over 200
prisoners escaped with 33 of them already having been recaptured. If
you skip the English language media, what's not confusing is why it
happened and why it was able to happen. Alsumaria reports that there
are approximately 900 inmates in the prison and that many have death
sentences. Alsumaria does even more than that. It notes the recent
prison violence throughout the country and ties it into the death
sentences. These aren't just happening at random, this is about the
many people being sentenced to death -- a fact the English language
press either doesn't know or doesn't think people need to know.

When
prisoners escape, as some have, without being caught, it makes a lot of
sense when you grasp that they are seen as persecuted. They're not the
deadly evil suddenly let loose and roaming through a town that's going
to cause people to pick up the phones and call the authorities. These
are people that many Iraqis feel didn't get a fair trial or received an
unduly harsh sentence. The refusal for this part of the story to be
reported goes a long way towards explaining the confusion over what's
been taking place in Iraq for months with these increased attacks on
prisons.

Already the English-language press is
obsessed with the Islamic State of Iraq -- a violent group that may be
responsible. And they may be. July 22nd,
the Islamic State of Iraq released an audio recording announc

ing a new
campaign of violence entitled Breaking The Walls which would include
prison breaks and killing "judges and investigators and their guards."
(They also threatened to attack America on US soil.) They've had great
success since then in launching deadly attacks. And one of the reasons
for their success is Nouri al-Maliki. The Islamic State of Iraq is
using violence which appalls many Iraqis but for reasons that a number
of Iraqis can identify with.

Yesterday, US President Barack Obama addressed the United Nations with a laundry list of fabulists claims. One of them was:

We
intervened in Libya alongside a broad coalition, and with the mandate
of the United Nations Security Council, because we had the ability to
stop the slaughter of innocents, and because we believed that the
aspirations of the people were more powerful than a tyrant.

Offering
realism on this topic is journalist and sociologist Mahdi Darius
Nazemroaya who was on the ground in the Libya as the government was
overthrown by 'rebels' -- some of whom were trained out of Langley in
the United States. Madhi was one of the few unembedded reporters in
Libya and one of the few who didn't take US government press releases
and put his name to it. A brave and independent voice, Mahdi is the
author of the Globalisation of NATO. Last Wednesday, he spoke with Heart of Africa host Kudakwashe Cayenne about Libya, the modern efforts to colonize Africa, and much more, click here to stream that program. Excerpt.

Mahdi
Darius Nazemroaya: The war in Libya was an American-led war. I know
the Americans didn't want to make it look like it was an American-led
war. That's why they pushed the French and the British ahead. But, in
reality, they provided most of the muscle, most of the bombs. Most of
the, uh, military might was from them. They started -- They started the
operations along with the French and the British. But they publicly
wanted to make it look like David Cameron, the Prime Minister of
Britain, and Nicolas Sarkozy, the President of the French Republic, were
the ones leading this. But this wasn't true. They were just hiding
behind them because they knew that the world -- There's a negative
opinion of US intervention in countries so they used it as a
smokescreen.

Kudakwashe Cayenne: Okay, Mahdi, why is it important for African to understand who NATO is today?

Mahdi
Darius Nazemroya: It's very important to understand who [NATO] is today
because they're colonizing the African continent. Like I mentioned
Libya. That's just one country. NATO is also involved in Somolia, it's
also involved in Sudan. It's normally involved in both these African
countries so we're talking about three African countries so NATO has
programs with about one-third of Africa's land areas, more than
one-third, is under NATO programs. NATO and the European Union and the
United States want to see a divided Africa. This is very clear from
their policies. I'm going to mention something called the Mediterranean
Dialogue. The Mediterranean Dialogue is a NATO partnership program,
it's an expansion of NATO. The countries that are part of this are
Morocco, Algeria, the People's Democratic Republic of Algeria, Egypt,
Tunisia -- these are the African members. That are part of it.

Kudakwashe Cayenne: Oh.

Mahdi
Darius Nazemroaya: Yeah, they're part of it. And this program is also
complimented by a European Union program called the Euro Mediterranean
Partnership which Nicolas Sarkozy renamed as the Union for the
Mediterranean, okay? So this is very important to grasp because NATO
expansion has always been aligned with European Union expansion. All
the Eastern European countries that joined NATO also joined the EU
after. And they joined NATO through something called a Partnership for
Peace which was made after the end of the Cold War -- it was made
towards the end of the Cold War. So it was made to -- It was made as a
way of securing these countries and I have to explain this, this is very
important, the Partnership for Peace prevented these Eastern European
countries -- and I will get back to Africa, but I need to explain what
happened in Eastern Europe. It prevented these Eastern European
countries from pursuing any other security alternative to NATO. All of
these countries used to be part of the Soviet-led Warsaw Pact.

Kudakwashe Cayenne: Okay.

Mahdi
Darius Nazemroaya: But once they joined the Partnership for Peace, they
were never -- They didn't become full NATO members and they didn't have
the benefits of being part of NATO but they fell under NATO control.
And this is what's important, when they fell under NATO control, they
were promised that they could join NATO after certain reforms. These
reforms were security, military and political which effected the
economy. So they were put under this program which meant that they had
one foot in the door and one foot out of the door. They were put under
this program because NATO could guarantee their structures could be
changed. They were being restructured and being prepared for NATO but
restructuring meant that they were essentially being turned into
colonies. The things they had to do was make public their defense
budgets and programs which meant NATO would know exactly what they were
doing with their defense and this is a way to keep your eye on them.
At the same time, old military officers were being pushed out and a lot
of these old military officers were very patriotic and they would look
out for their country's benefit and there was a chance that it might
enact a coup d'etat in their country against the new governments that
were coming in place. And this is what's important, the new governments
were all supported and funded by the United States and its western
allies within NATO and they were putting a lot of criminals in place or
people that were treacherous who actually were selling their national
assets to the United States and Western Europe, they were letting their
countries become colonized.

Heart of Africa,
hosted by Kitakyushu Cayenne, is a weekly program featuring music and
interviews (Mahdi's interview starts about ten minutes into the
program). You can hear it live at More Light Radio
every Wednesday at 2000 hours Central Africa Time. Tomorrow night, the
latest episode is broadcast live and the scheduled guest is Abramo
Askew with the topic of the conflict in Syria, unrest in the region, the
notorious video out of the US and Muslim reactions.

On
Libya for a moment more, September 11, 2012, the US Consulate in Libya
was attacked resulting in the deaths of Glen Dotty, Christopher Stevens,
Sean Smith and Tyrone Woods. Last Thursday's snapshot included:

On that attack, earlier today Kathleen Tennessee of the Laos Angeles Times reported,
"The White House is now describing the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S.
Consulate in Benghazi as a 'terrorist attack,' a shift in emphasis after
days of describing the lethal assault as a spontaneous eruption of
anger over an anti-Islamic film made in California."

Brian
Williams: It won't bring back the U.S. Ambassador or the three other
Americans who were murdered -- including two former Navy Seals, but
tonight: What happened the night they died? The storming of that U.S.
consulate in Benghazi, Libya is being labeled an act of terrorism by the
White House. That was not the initial story and some in government
have given conflicting versions for what happened there that night. We
begin tonight with tonight with what it does mean. Our chief foreign
affairs correspondent Andrea Mitchell in our D.C. bureau tonight.
Andrea, good evening.

Andrea Mitchell: Good evening, Brian. And tonight the White House confirmed that the attack was an act of terror -- officials say by al Qaeda sympathizers. But big questions remain about when it was planned and why initial reports were wrong?

See
Ruth's post for the full transcript and she's also posted the video of
the report. On her Friday post, she noted that while NBC treated this
as major news, PBS' NewsHour reduced it to two sentences in the newswrap and didn't even note that the White House had admitted it was a terrorist act.

The NewsHour could fix their omission today. AP reports
today that the White House was pressed on Air Force One about where
they stand on the attack since last Thursday saw Jay Carney deliver the
announcement, was this also the opinion of President Barack Obama?

Q
Jay, in his interview on the Today Show this morning, the Libyan
President said that the attacks on the consulate had nothing to do with
the video that sparked all the protests as elsewhere. He also repeated
his claim that they were preplanned, given their sophistication, so
given that's in direct contradiction to what the administration says,
who's right?

MR.
CARNEY: Well, I can tell you that President Magarief made very
heartfelt public statements before his meeting with Secretary Clinton in
New York about the brave four Americans who were killed and the firm
commitment of Libya to not allow a violent minority to hijack Libya's
hopes and dreams.

Over the course of the
past two weeks, this administration has provided as much information as
it has been able to. We made clear that our initial assessment and
interim reports were based on information that was available at the
time. Several administration officials, including the NCTC director,
have spoken on the record about the information we have. We have also
been clear that there's an ongoing FBI investigation and that we must
allow that investigation to take its course. The Accountability Review
Board established by Secretary of State Clinton is also doing a full
investigation.

I can point you again to
the statements by the NCTC director about his assessment as the chief
counterterrorism official about the information that we had available at
the time about how the attack occurred and who was responsible. And it
continues to be the case that we provided information based on what we
know -- not based on speculation, but based on what we know --
acknowledging that we are continuing an investigation that will
undoubtedly uncover more facts, and as more facts and more details
emerge we will, when appropriate, provide them to you.

Q The fact that he was pretty equivocal statement today that the video --

MR.
CARNEY: The U.S. intelligence upon which we make our assessments has
provided very clear public assessments of the information that they have
available, that they had initially, that they had available when the
NCTC director talked to Congress and spoke publicly. And that's what --
we make our judgments based on the information that we gather.

Q
One more question on that. But how often is the President in contact
with President Magarief? I mean, are they talking every day? Are they
sharing this information? Is there anything that he might be aware of
that the President would not be?

MR.
CARNEY: We have significant cooperation with the new Libyan
government, but I don't think intelligence sharing occurs at the
President-to-President level, necessarily. President Obama did speak
last week with the Libyan leader, the same night that he spoke with
President Morsi of Egypt. But I don't believe they've had a
conversation since.

[. . .]

Q
Is there any reason why the President did not -- he was asked
point-blank in The View interview, is this a terrorist attack, yes or
no? Is there any reason why he didn't say yes?

MR.
CARNEY: No, there's -- I mean, he answered the question that he was
asked, and there's no reason that he chose the words he did beyond
trying to provide a full explanation of his views and his assessment
that we need to await further information that the investigation will
uncover. But it is certainly the case that it is our view as an
administration, the President's view, that it was a terrorist attack.

It doesn't matter whether or not
they intended their illegal war to kill over a million Iraqis. You can
even set aside the issue of Abu Ghraib (for England, the UK secret
service getting caught in Basra trying to pass as Iraqis while
apparently setting off bombs -- one of the most under-reported moments
of the war despite the fact that a prison was destroyed in the
process). You can even set aside illegal weapons being used. The birth
defects demonstrate they were used but you can set that aside.

If
you wage an illegal war, you are a War Criminal. If you shoot someone
dead, you are a murderer. These are basics under the law. Blair and
Bush did not have authority to start the war but did so. They intended
to start the war regardless of legality. They broke the law, they did
so with intent. They are War Criminals.

Now
Steven Strauss wants to bring Tony Blair into it. He'll argue, "Tutu
did!" Well, Strauss, if you bring the British into it and you start
noting body counts (incorrect ones), it's incumbent upon you to include
the British toll. Let's do what he lacked the manners to do, 179
is the number of "British Armed Forces personnel or MOD civilians" who
have died in Iraq since March 2003 according to the United Kingdom's
Ministry of Defence. Again, if you start mentioning Blair and
England and you then give death tolls, it's just rude and insensitive
not to give the UK losses. Iraqi losses? They aren't really counted.
The Lancet Study found over a million. It used the same estimating
process the UN uses. It was only 'controversial' because people didn't
want to face the realities of the war and worked overtime to try and
discredit it. The methodology stands. By now, it may be up to two
million. He grossly underestimates the death toll while adding two to
the US death toll. The US Defense Dept does not list "over 4,500 of our
own service personnel," it's 4488.

Again,
he overestimates the US count (unless he's disputing the official DoD
count -- in which case he needs to say so) while underestimating the
Iraqi death toll -- and, of course, ignores the British death toll. The
word for that is: Tacky.

Of the war in Iraq
and the tremendous cost in terms of deaths, the injured and the money,
Strauss insists, "This wasn't leadership by criminal masterminds -- it
was mismanagement by incompetent buffoons." So what's your damn point?

Do we remember the attempt a few years back to rob Velasquez and Sons Mufflers For Less in Chicago?
The robber showed up but the employees said they couldn't open the safe
and told him only the manager had the combination. What did the robber
do (link goes to WGN report, this is a true story)? He gave them his
cell phone number and told them to call him when the manager got there.
The police had the employees call him and tell him the safe was open,
when he showed up with his gun, the police arrested him.

Now
the judge may have laughed when the robber appeared in court. He or
she may have told the robber, "You are an incompetent buffoon." But he
or she didn't say, "I want you to plead not guilty by reason of
stupidity." Stupidity -- like ignorance of the law -- is not a valid
legal defense. Why Strauss would choose to weigh in all this time later
in defense of Blair and Bush begs the question if he also is an
"incompetent buffoon"?

Wednesday, September 26, 2012

THE ALWAYS TRASHY STEPHANIE MENCIMER AT THE LAUGHABLE MOTHER JONES HAS AN ARTICLE
ABOUT MITT ROMNEY'S TAX RETURNS. HAVING FAILED TO FIND ANYTHING IN
THEM, THE FOCUS OF STEPHIE'S ARTICLE IS WHAT SHE HOPES MITT MIGHT BE
DOING TO HIDE MONEY OFFSHORE. IT'S ALL A BIT PATHETIC AND SAD, SORT OF
LIKE PICTURING STEPHANIE ALONE IN HER BED YET AGAIN, FLIPPING THROUGH A
FALLING APART PAPERBACK BY NANCY FRIDAY WITH ONE HAND AS SHE TRIES AND
TRIES TO PLEASURE HERSELF WITH THE OTHER. STEPHIE, OF COURSE, WILL FOREVER BE INFAMOUS FOR HER ATTACK ON JAMIE LEIGH JONES.
IT TAKES A REAL PIECE OF TRASH TO BE A WHORE FOR HALIBURTON. PEOPLE
SHOULD KEEP THAT IN MIND WHEN READING ANYTHING BY THAT HUMAN PIECE OF
CRAP STEPHANIE MENCIMER.

Fars News Agency reports,
"The US consulate in Iraq's Northern city of Kirkuk was targeted by
rocket attacks, a source in Kirkuk police announced on Tuesday." In the
post-September 11, 2012 era of diplomacy, that attack may actually get
noticed. The attack on the US Consulate in Libya resulted in the deaths
of four Americans. Maybe Barack will just call today's attacks more "bumps in the road"?
More than likely, he and the White House will just avoid mentioning it
entirely. Maybe the White House will follow the State Dept's lead and
just refuse to hold daily press breifings? There was no press briefing
by the State Dept yesterday, there's none today. Is there something
confusing about the term "daily press briefing"? Do they really think
that Philippe Reines' nasty e-mails to Michael Hastings won't be a
topic when they finally hold a press briefing? (For news of those
e-mails, refer to Lucy Madison's report for CBS News which is work safe.)

Glen
Doherty, Christopher Stevens, Sean Smith and Tyrone Woods died
September 12th due to the attack on the US Consulate in Libya. Two weeks
later, when another US consulate is attacked with rockets, you don't
think that warrants a public response from the US State Dept? Other than
both being attacked with rockets, there's nothing similar and,
fortunately, no one was hurt in the attack today. But you don't think a
rocket attack on a US Consulate merits a word or two from the State
Dept?

Apparently not.

Four
Americans died. Four. Each one was valued. They are devalued when you
name the ambassador and render the others invisible. US President Barack
Obama did that today at the United Nations.

That
is outrageous. 18 sentences about the ambassador and Glen Doherty, Sean
Smith and Tyrone Woods are reduced, by Barack, to "three of his
colleagues." Is someone confused about the job they hold? Barack's not
head of the US State Dept, he's President of the United States. Four
Americans died, each life had value, each life had meaning, how dare he
ramble on for 16 sentences about the ambassador and not even name the
other three who died, not even name them.

This
wasn't about honoring Chris Stevens, this was about creating a media
moment, something that you knew would grab attention. The office of the
President of the United States is supposed to be above media moments. Is
there not one damn grown up in the administration?

Apparently not because Matt Compton's White House post
is all about how "President Obama remembered Ambassador Chris Stevens"
and how Stevens "was slain earlier this month in an attack" -- Compton
never even does the insulting "three of his colleagues."

This
is outrageous and insulting to the memories of Glen Doherty, Sean Smith
and Tyrone Woods. These were prepared remarks. It was intended that
Barack would name Chris Stevens and go on about him for 16 sentences.
And that wouldn't be a problem if the other three had been so honored
but they weren't. They were ignored. Not even named.

Only
14 days after the four died while serving the United States and three
are disappeared, not even named, in a prepared speech? Where are the
grown ups? What an insult to everyone who works for a US embassy or
consulate -- which does include guarding one.

What an insult.

Unlike
Doherty, Smith and Tyrone, Stevens has been the focal point of massive
media accounts and that's the only reason his name was used in the
speech, the hope that it would create a media moment for Barack to look
caring and concerned. If you're caring and concerned, (a) you don't need
to create that impression (people know) and (b) you don't render three
of the dead in the same attack invisible.

All those pretty lies, pretty lies

When you gonna realize they're only pretty lies

Only pretty lies

Just pretty lies

-- "The Last Time I Saw Richard," written by Joni Mitchell, first appears on her album Blue

In the speech today, Barack noted the Arab Spring:

It
has been less than two years since a vendor in Tunisia set himself on
fire to protest the oppressive corruption in his country, and sparked
what became known as the Arab Spring. And since then, the world has been
captivated by the transformation that's taken place, and the United
States has supported the forces of change.

We
were inspired by the Tunisian protests that toppled a dictator, because
we recognized our own beliefs in the aspiration of men and women who
took to the streets.

We insisted on change in Egypt, because our support for democracy ultimately put us on the side of the people.

We
supported a transition of leadership in Yemen, because the interests of
the people were no longer being served by a corrupt status quo.

We
intervened in Libya alongside a broad coalition, and with the mandate
of the United Nations Security Council, because we had the ability to
stop the slaughter of innocents, and because we believed that the
aspirations of the people were more powerful than a tyrant.

I'm
sure some will emerge to point out that the toppled Tunisian, Yemen and
Egyptian regimes were all supported by DC. I hope a few will point out
that the Libyan War was illegal. But who will point out the obvious:
Iraq.

Iraqis
weren't supported. Iraqis took the street in January 2011 before the
Arab Spring kicked off. They were protesting their loved ones
disappearing into the 'justice' system. They weren't all young people so
it didn't have the glossy blow and, of course, it wasn't in the KRG or
in Baghdad when it kicked off so you didn't have the US and other
foreign press around to cover it. But it did come to Baghdad and it did
come to the Iraqi youth. And the US government -- which still had many
troops in Iraq -- didn't help the Iraqi people. When Little Saddam Nouri
al-Maliki began having his forces attack the protesters, the White
House, the State Dept, the entire Barack Obama administration didn't say
one damn word publicly.

Let's drop back to the February 28, 2011 snapshot and this will be a long excerpt but it's needed for the record:

Over the weekend, protesting continued in Iraq as it did on Friday's Day Of Rage. Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) reported
that protests continued Saturday with Samarra protesters defying a
"curfew to attend the funerals of two people killed during protests" on
Friday and that Iraqi forces opened fire on the protesters/mourners
leaving eight injured while Basra also saw a funeral for a protester
killed on Friday. On Sunday, BNO News reports, protests continued in Iraq with 27 protesters left wounded in Amara City by Iraqi forces. Today, at Baghdad's Tahrir Square, Alsumaria TV reports Iraqis turned out to demonstrate again.

Saturday, Wael Grace and Adam Youssef (Al Mada) reported
the disturbing news that after Friday's Baghdad demonstration, four
journalists who had been reporting on the protests were eating lunch
when Iraqi security forces rushed into the restaurant and arrested them
with eye witnesses noting that they brutal attacked the journalists
inside the restaurant, cursing the journalists as they beat them with
their rifle handles. One of the journalists was Hossam Serail who says
that they left Tahrir Square with colleagues including journalists,
writers intellectuals, filmmakers. They went into the restaurant where
the Iraqi military barged in, beat and kicked them, hit them in the face
and head with the handles of their rifles, cursed the press and
journalists, put him the trunk of a Hummer. This is Nouri al-Maliki's
Iraq -- the Iraq the US forces prop up at the command of the Barack
Obama. Stephanie McCrummen (Washington Post) added
that the journalists stated "they were handcuffed, blindfolded, beaten
and threatened with execution by soldiers from an army intelligence
unit" and quotes Hossam Serail (spelled Hussam al-Ssairi) stating, "It
was like they were dealing with a bunch of al-Qaeda operatives, not a
group of journalists. Yesterday was like a test, like a picture of the
new democracy in Iraq."

["]Security
forces prohibited cameras from entering Baghdad's Tahrir Square, where
there were thousands of people protesting, according to news reports and
local journalists. Police confiscated tapes that reporters managed to
shoot in the square, according to Al-Jazeera.

[. . .]

Anti-riot
forces also raided the offices of Al-Diyar satellite TV station in
Baghdad and detained 10 of its staff members for three hours, according
to Al-Diyar's website.
In the afternoon, anti-riot police stormed the office for a second
time, prohibited the staff from entering the building, and detained at
least three more employees.

Niyaz
Abdulla, a correspondent for Radio Nawa and a volunteer for Metro
Center, a local press freedom group, was assaulted today while covering
demonstrations in Erbil. "I was on the air when a plainclothes security
officer came and started threatening me," she told CPJ. The officer
threatened to call over men to attack her, alluding to a potential
sexual assault. "I stayed calm but it was very disturbing," Abdulla
said. She added that two of her colleagues had their cameras confiscated
while they were covering the demonstration.

In
Karbala, anti-riot forces attacked Afaq and Al-Salam satellite channels
crews, according to news reports. "They were beaten and cursed at while
they were covering the march in Karbala," Jihad Jaafar, a correspondent
for Afaq channel told Noun news website. He added that the tapes of the crews were confiscated. ["]

In
addition, CPJ's Deputy Director Robert Mahoney is quoted stating, "We
are particularly disturbed that a democratically elected government such
as that of Iraq would attempt to quash coverage of political protests.
We call on Baghdad to honor its commitments to respect media freedom."

["]During
a news conference held on Sunday, four journalists -- Hussam Saraie of
Al-Sabah Al-Jadid newspaper, Ali Abdul Sada of the Al-Mada daily, Ali
al-Mussawi of Sabah newspaper and Hadi al-Mehdi of Demozee radio --
reported being handcuffed, blindfolded, beaten and threatened by
security forces. They also claimed they were held in custody for nine
hours and forced to sign a document, the contents of which were not
revealed to them. Aswat al Iraq news agency reported that the
journalists will file a court case against the executive authority in
response to the alleged violations of their civil rights. This
episode is the latest in a series of repressive measures adopted by
security forces in order to stifle media reports about the current
political and social unrest.["]

Meanwhile Nasiriyah reports
that Maj Gen Qassim Atta, the spokesperson for Baghdad Operations
Command is insisting he has no idea about targeting of the media,
specifically four journalists being arrested on Friday, and insists
there will be an investigation. He's calling on witnesses to come
forward . . . so they can be disappeared? This morning Kelly McEvers (NPR's Morning Edition) reported
on the attacks on journalists and focused on Hadi Al Mahdi whose "leg
is really swollen" and who was one of the four noted above stopped
Friday afternoon while "eating lunch with other journalists when
soldiers pulled up, blindfolded them, and whisked them away. Mahdi was
beaten in the leg, eyes, and head. A solider tried to get him to admit
he was being paid to topple the regime."

You may not know it because Iraq, by then, received so little coverage, but journalist Hadi al-Mahdi? He was assassinated September 8, 2011.
He had been threatened and harassed by Nouri's goons. Though security
tape from outside his apartment should have revealed the killer or
killers, that tape vanished. And, of course, no one was ever punished. I
don't doubt for a moment that Hadi was killed on the orders of Nouri
al-Maliki. Assassinated in his own home.

The
US government didn't encourage or support the Iraqi people. The US
government did not condemn the attacks on the protesters. The US
government did ask several news outlets not to cover the ongoing
protests -- which lasted months. Those who ignored the request risked
not only US government ire but also physical assault because not even
Western reporters were safe covering the protests as summer 2011 rolled
around.

Who was doing the attacking? Nouri's
forces and Nouri's supporters. And they weren't called out. Some outlets
were very helpful to the US government. The New York Times,
for example, ignored most of the protests and cast aspertions on the
protesters in their Saturday, February 26th report of the first massive
Friday protest across Iraq. I suppose it's a shame that those working
for both the New York Times and the US government were able to collect only one pay check.

The
US government said nothing publicly when Hadi was murdered -- murdered
because he believed in core human values and he acted on his beliefs.
But the Barack Obama administration never wants to offend Nouri
al-Maliki.

Last
week, when Senator John Kerry rightly noted that the US has the ability
to tie conditions to all the US taxpayer money that flows to Nouri, the
State Dept, via Victoria Nuland, immediately shot down the idea. They
never want to offend Little Saddam. They stroke Little Sadam, they
encourage him, they encourage his efforts to snuff out freedom. Last Friday morning, we noted that the proposal by Senator John Kerry and others on the Senate Foreign Service Committee was correct. By Friday evening, you could already see some results from what John floated. In Monday's paper, the New York Times editorial board would observe,
"[. . .] Senator John Kerry, chairman of the Foreign Relations
Committee, was right to warn last week that American aid could be
reconsidered if Iraq failed to change course."

Washington has little political and no military influence over these developments. As Michael Gordon and Bernard Trainor charge in their ambitious new history of the Iraq war, The Endgame,
Obama's administration sacrificed political influence by failing in
2010 to insist that the results of Iraq's first proper election be
honored: "When the Obama administration acquiesced in the questionable
judicial opinion that prevented Ayad Allawi's bloc, after it had won the
most seats in 2010, from the first attempt at forming a new government,
it undermined the prospects, however slim, for a compromise that
might have led to a genuinely inclusive and cross-sectarian government."

Could
we discuss the above? Judging by the comments left on the article, no.
You have Bush-supporters blaming Barack and Barack-supporters blaming
Bush. No one wants to allow their own personal savior might have led
them astray.